This
court has described the background factual allegations of
this case in its previous order. (Dkts. #55.) As with its
most recent opinion granting dismissal (See Dkt. #59), the
court will not restate the facts again here.

A.
Property Defendants

Property
Defendants argue that the court should dismiss the claims of
several Plaintiffs (Dennis Houtz, Robert Wong, Mike
Hampshire, Lion's Fan LLC, and James Dunn) with prejudice
because they signed settlement agreements which included
releases for all claims. They contend that still others
(Rebecca Wilson, Mike Hamphsire, Linda Saenz, Simone
Vohradnik, Ramona Lorraine Solano-Owen, Layne Lundstrom, and
Audrey Lundstrom) should be dismissed because they are not
alleged to have actually entered into any transactions with
Property Defendants on their own behalf. Further, they insist
that all Plaintiffs agreed in writing to venue and choice of
law provisions identifying Utah as the proper forum. They
continue that the provisions are valid and enforceable under
Utah law-the state identified in both the purchase and
settlement agreements' choice of law and venue
provisions-and the court should not permit Plaintiffs to
evade enforcement of the terms of a contract merely because
they allege that they did not read or understand them. In
addition, they assert that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
pleading standard of Federal Rule 9(b), which applies to both
the fraud and RICO claims since Plaintiffs are alleging that
the RICO organization in this case existed to commit fraud,
because Plaintiffs have not delineated exactly what each
Defendant did to give rise to the claims. They also argue
that Plaintiffs have inadequately pled their RICO claims by
failing to allege specific facts correlating to the requisite
elements, and that in any case they should not be permitted
to convert a normal commercial dispute into a RICO suit with
potentially trebled damages on such scant grounds. Property
Defendants request dismissal along with attorney's fees.

Plaintiffs
argue that they have met the pleading requirements to state a
claim for RICO by identifying the individual Defendants and
their role as knowing participants in the scheme. They argue
that a plaintiff need only show the use of mail or wire in
furtherance of a scheme to defraud along with some injury to
state a claim for RICO based on mail or wire fraud-something
that they aver is clearly the case here where certain
Defendants are controlled by the same individuals. They
assert that Defendants have completely failed to address
their breach of fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs
particularly in light of statements made prior to entry into
the sale agreements. They also argue that the release
agreements are unenforceable as the sole consideration
offered by Defendants was for rent income or rehabilitation
services, which they had already agreed to supply in the sale
contracts. Plaintiffs insist that, because several Defendants
are controlled by the same individuals, it would be
nonsensical to require Plaintiffs to pursue claims against
each entity in separate for a pursuant to separate forum
selection or arbitration provisions in the separate
agreements entered into.

In
reply, Property Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' RICO
arguments miss the mark badly, as they do not respond to the
issues Defendants raised regarding the complaint's
shortcomings, but instead resort to a superficial treatment
of the law. They also argue that the court should disregard
Plaintiffs' recitation of the contents of a sales DVD
purportedly containing the pitch used to induce Plaintiffs to
participate in the real estate transactions because it is
extrinsic to the complaint. Defendants claim that it is
irrelevant whether some Property Defendant entities are
controlled by the same individuals who control Lending
Defendant entities. Neither does the business relationship
create fiduciary duties in Defendants, they contend, and even
if it did, this would not preclude enforcement of the choice
of jurisdiction provisions. Property Defendants also claim
that Plaintiffs' view that the preexisting duty rule
precludes enforcement of the settlement agreements is
misguided since the court should not inquire into the
adequacy of consideration, the sales were made “as is,
” and the agreements expressly in writing disclaimed
any warrantees.

B.
JGI

Plaintiffs'
only claims against JGI are for civil RICO, as JGI is alleged
to have purchased then rehabilitated houses and then sold
them to Property Defendants before the latter passed them on
to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs base their RICO theory on JGI's
conduct being aimed toward the commission of wire or mail
fraud. JGI argues that Plaintiffs have completely failed to
allege the elements of a RICO claim against them and instead
have resorted to impermissible, generalized
“shotgun” pleading. Plaintiffs respond that the
allegations within the Second Amended Complaint are indeed
sufficient to state a claim against JGI as participants in a
RICO organization, especially when combined with evidence of
their active role in the scheme in the form of an online
YouTube video and records indicating that JGI has sold
properties directly to individuals who participated in the
buying summit operated by other Defendants. They also contend
that Defendant has failed to address controlling precedent
and essentially admits to the truth of the allegations
regarding the structure of the alleged racketeering scheme.
In reply, JGI insists that the court should not consider the
new evidence as it is external to the complaint, and the
evidence is irrelevant in any case. It also argues that
Plaintiffs' reading of case law is misguided insofar as
it would allow them to plead without requisite specificity.

II.
STANDARD

Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Under the Rule, the court construes the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepts all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true. League of
United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527
(6th Cir. 2007). This standard requires more than bare
assertions of legal conclusions. Bovee v. Coopers &
Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 2001).
“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Any claim for relief
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

However,
to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide
sufficient facts to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement, ' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.) Additionally, on a motion to dismiss, a court
is usually limited to the complaint and attached exhibits,
but it may also consider “public records, items
appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to
the defendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are
referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims
contained therein.” Erie County v. Morton
Salt, Inc., 702 F.3d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Bassett v. Nat'l Coll. Athletic
Ass'n., 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008)).

Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) states that “[i]n alleging
fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent,
knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be
alleged generally.” The Sixth Circuit has
“further interpreted Rule 9(b) to require that a
plaintiff allege the time, place, and content of the alleged
misrepresentations on which he or she relied; the fraudulent
scheme; the fraudulent intent of the defendants; and the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.